I shall, for the present, pass over to that part of your pamphlet,
in which you endeavour to establish the supremacy
of the British Parliament over America. After a proper
eclaircissement of this point, I shall draw such inferences,
as will sap the foundation of every thing you have offered.

The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that "I had,
explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural
rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may
be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law
and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the
strong."

I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for
that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of
mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened
age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for
you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your
guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes
of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the
study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your
perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and
Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on
this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will
not require any others.

There is so strong a similitude between your political
principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in
judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you
for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident
with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held,
as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint
of law and government. Moral obligation, according
to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society;
and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the
mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social
intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd
and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence
of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the
governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.

As you, sometimes, swear by him that made you, I conclude,
your sentiment does not correspond with his, in that
which is the basis of the doctrine, you both agree in; and
this makes it impossible to imagine whence this congruity
between you arises. To grant, that there is a supreme intelligence,
who rules the world, and has established laws to
regulate the actions of his creatures; and, still, to assert,
that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly
free from all restraints of law and government, appear
to a common understanding, altogether irreconcileable.

Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very
dissimilar theory. They have supposed, that the deity,
from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each
other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law,
which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior
to any human institution whatever.

This is what is called the law of nature, "which, being
coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of
course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding
over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and
such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately,
or immediately, from this original." Blackstone.

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind,
the supreme being gave existence to man, together with
the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He
endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which,
to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with
his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable
right to personal liberty, and personal safety.

Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power
to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty;
nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience
from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.

Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established,
must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers
and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as
are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the
latter; for what original title can any man or set of men
have, to govern others, except their own consent? To
usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to
grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to
entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every
man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore,
confer no obligation to obedience.

"The principal aim of society is to protect individuals, in
the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested
in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could
not be preserved, in peace, without that mutual assistance,
and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of
friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the
first and primary end of human laws, is to maintain and
regulate these absolute rights of individuals." Blackstone.

If we examine the pretensions of parliament, by this criterion,
which is evidently, a good one, we shall, presently
detect their injustice. First, they are subversive of our natural
liberty, because an authority is assumed over us,
which we by no means assent to. And secondly, they divest
us of that moral security, for our lives and properties,
which we are intitled to, and which it is the primary end
of society to bestow. For such security can never exist,
while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind
us; and while it may be the interest of our uncontroled
legislators to oppress us as much as possible.

To deny these principles will be not less absurd, than to
deny the plainest axioms: I shall not, therefore, attempt
any further illustration of them.

. . . . .

Thus Sir, I have taken a pretty general survey of the
American Charters; and proved to the satisfaction of every
unbiassed person, that they are intirely, discordant with
that sovereignty of parliament, for which you are an advocate.
The disingenuity of your extracts (to give it no
harsher name) merits the severest censure; and will no
doubt serve to discredit all your former, as well as future
labours, in your favourite cause of despotism.

It is true, that New-York has no Charter. But, if it could
support it's claim to liberty in no other way, it might, with
justice, plead the common principles of colonization: for,
it would be unreasonable, to seclude one colony, from the
enjoyment of the most important privileges of the rest.
There is no need, however, of this plea: The sacred rights
of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old
parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a
sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the
hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured
by mortal power.

The nations of Turkey, Russia, France, Spain, and all
other despotic kingdoms, in the world, have an inherent
right, when ever they please, to shake off the yoke of servitude,
(though sanctified by the immemorial usage of
their ancestors;) and to model their government, upon the
principles of civil liberty.

. . . . .

Had the rest of America passively looked on, while a
sister colony was subjugated, the same fate would gradually
have overtaken all. The safety of the whole depends
upon the mutual protection of every part. If the sword of
oppression be permitted to lop off one limb without opposition,
reiterated strokes will soon dismember the whole
body. Hence it was the duty and interest of all the colonies
to succour and support the one which was suffering. It is
sometimes sagaciously urged, that we ought to commisserate
the distresses of the people of Massachusetts; but not
intermeddle in their affairs, so far, as perhaps to bring
ourselves into like circumstances with them. This might be
good reasoning, if our neutrality would not be more dangerous,
than our participation: But I am unable to conceive
how the colonies in general would have any security
against oppression, if they were once to content themselves,
with barely pitying each other, while parliament was
prosecuting and enforcing its demands. Unless they continually
protect and assist each other, they must all inevitably
fall a prey to their enemies.

Extraordinary emergencies, require extraordinary expedients.
The best mode of opposition was that in which
there might be an union of councils. This was necessary to
ascertain the boundaries of our rights; and to give weight
and dignity to our measures, both in Britain and America.
A Congress was accordingly proposed, and universally
agreed to.

You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body;
but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a
matter of no real importance. When the first principles of
civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people
are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not
to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the
law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to
that standard, all cavils against them, betray either ignorance
or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to
which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to
them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human
laws contradict or discountenance the means, which
are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society,
they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null
and void.